NANDITA NARAIN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-1-11
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 07,1983

NANDITA NARAIN Appellant
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MAYA RANI SUR ALIAS MAYA DEBI SUR VS. SANKAR CHANDRA MAJUMDER [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
DALJIT RAI OBERAI VS. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2005-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
DALJIT RAI OBEROI VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DIYA VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(P&H)-2013-4-136] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR SAURABH VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-102] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VS. SUKHBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-578] [REFERRED TO]
BACHAN SINGH VS. SANTOKH SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT SINGH VS. RANVIJAY SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2001-5-76] [REFERRED TO]
DALIP KAUR & ANOTHER VS. ADDL. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1991-3-148] [REFERRED TO]
SARUP SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(P&H)-1989-2-148] [REFERRED]
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS. ABHINAV PANDEY & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-188] [REFERRED TO]
ANNIE GURMEHER KAUR VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-75] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.N.Kirpal - (1.)According to the respondents, despite Ordinance 28-A having been framed, the marks secured by a candidate in an examination, which he had repeated continued to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining his eligibility for the award of Prizes or Medals, provided that the candidate had passed the course within the minimum span period prescribed. It is contended, that it is only in the year 1980-81 that the matter was investigated in detail and legal opinion was obtained. The legal opinion given to the University was that, on a correct interpretation of the said Ordinance, a candidate absenting himself from an exam. in a paper was to be treated on the same footing as the candidate who failed to pass a paper, and if the latter became ineligible for the award on account of his not having passed the exam. in the normal course within the minimum span prescribed, then there was no reason why the disqualification should not apply equally to a candidate who had absented him- self from the exam. in a paper. According to the respondents, similar would be a case where a candidate repeats the paper in a subsequent semester. According to the respondents, in all such cases with regard to the said paper, for the purposes of deciding as to whether that candidate is entitled to an award of Prize or a Medal, the marks obtained by that candidate in that paper would be taken as zero.
(2.)Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the interpretation sought to be placed by the University was clearly unwarranted. According to him, the words of the Ordinance do not postulate the candidate being required to pass every paper at the first available opportunity ; if a candidate obtains the highest marks in the minimum span which is relatable to the exam., namely, two years in the case of M.A., then that candidate would be entitled to get the medals/prizes irrespective of the fact as to whether he had repeated any paper or not. Mr. Mridul, the learned counsel for the respondent-University, on the other hand, reiterated the stand of the University, the moment a student does not appear in a paper or fails in it or repeats that paper then, for the purposes of Ordinance 28-A, that student must be regarded as getting zero marks, notwithstanding the fact that. the student may have completed his course of study within the stipulated period of two years.
(3.)'From the above it is clear that the only issue which arises for consideration is as to what is the correct interpretation of Ordinance 28-A. It is not disputed that if the marks obtained by the petitioner in paper X, which she had to take in the 3rd semester, are taken into consideration then she would be entitled to the aforesaid five prizes/medals as, admittedly, she has obtained 5.70 average grade points and has gradation 'O'. (Outstanding)
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.